"The California Department of Justice has received your electronic AB 1135/SB 880 Assault Weapon Registration and will begin processing your submission. You will be notified of the results via U.S. Mail. If you have any questions, please use the Report an Issue feature in the CFARS application https://cfars.doj.ca.gov. For questions regarding your account, please email the Bureau of Firearms at: bofcris@doj.ca.gov"

Registered 4 on 6/6.
Registered an additional 2 on 6/26 for a total of 6 guns.

Started getting incomplete kickbacks on 8/7 related to requesting better pictures, mischecked vertical foregrip for having a handstop etc. Was a fun game playing with the person doing my registration because literally minutes after receiving the email I'd have the corrections done.

Just 5 minutes later received the acceptance confirmation email. Looks like they did my rifles in a group as a user and not in the order that I submitted them in given a 20 day gap between my submissions.

I checked the website to check on the status of my application and some showed incomplete yet I never got an email for corrections. there were comments on the website by a reviewer asking for changes though

__________________
Light travels faster than sound...this is why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak.

I am bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me

I think it is more random. Some have reported less than 2 months, while others have reported longer than 2 months. It is a shame that DoJ hasn't seen fit to post statistics on their approval process. No performance metrics = no performance. Nothing like bureaucracy at work.

I haven't even received my first of 5 processed notice in the email, nor has my wife. I check both of our accounts every Mon/Wends/Fri to catch any issues that may pop up. Registered them around the middle of June

The DOJ should have been held to the 10 day rule as DROS's are. When you have the weapon in your possession already and had previously passed the background check to obtain said weapon/'s, it should be an easy job to process them....

The DOJ should have been held to the 10 day rule as DROS's are. When you have the weapon in your possession already and had previously passed the background check to obtain said weapon/'s, it should be an easy job to process them....

The whole 'registration' effort was one big clusterf*ck. If you passed the original DROS background check, that should have been sufficient. The argument that a newer background check would somehow catch owners who now should not be able to legally own a BBAW is specious. Once the registration application is approved, there is no further background check to determine the registrant is now not qualified to own a BBAW. All that has been done is to add one further hoop for an otherwise legally qualified prospective owner to have to jump through.

The whole 'registration' effort was one big clusterf*ck. If you passed the original DROS background check, that should have been sufficient. The argument that a newer background check would somehow catch owners who now should not be able to legally own a BBAW is specious. Once the registration application is approved, there is no further background check to determine the registrant is now not qualified to own a BBAW. All that has been done is to add one further hoop for an otherwise legally qualified prospective owner to have to jump through.

I agree it was a giant joke, designed specifically to stop people from registering because they didn't want to grandfather anything in. To the DOJ and it's political counterparts, the name of the game was to get as many people as possible into the felon category and worry about it later when more anti-gun policy makers could tell them what to do next.

As it stands now about 250,000 owners are essentially exempt from further AW legislation. They want to go after those weapons too but it's much harder than simply relying on a "public safety" argument and continuing to pursue semi-automatic weapons that are still legally for sale.

Gun companies don't make money off of existing registered weapons. They make money off of current and future sales, and if there are less of those then there is less money for those companies to spend on lobbyists and pro-gun causes. That ultimately means less money for the NRA.

The registry is a collection of unicorns designed to die off and ultimately go away.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by doggie

Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG

Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.

"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Submitted 5 rifles within 1 session around mid June as prime registrant, got email replies about 2 months after for all of them, that they have received the apps and should get something in the snail mail soon. Submitted joint registrant the day after mine, have yet to receive any email, guess they should be coming soon. Still think this is all F'ing BS.

He completed an application, photographed his rifles, and submitted an application, so exactly what purpose does it serve to disassemble them?

In my opinion, disassembling a rifle to be on the safe side of a law that he has already complied with seems to serve no purpose at all.

I don't think it does anything magical either but hey, it's literally no effort so it's something to do to feel safe while we wait. Remember, theoretically the moment the application is processed to the point of a letter being printed to when we receive the letter could be weeks. At the point of a successful application that has been approved it means nothing that the weapon is disassembled..........

The only time weapons disassembly means anything is when it's NOT a RAW yet. We never know the exact time it does turn into a RAW.

The main thing to get across to people is that it's a bad idea to be moving around with the weapon before we have a letter in hand. I think some still erroneously think disassembly covers them when they are transporting.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by doggie

Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG

Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.

"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

The whole 'registration' effort was one big clusterf*ck. If you passed the original DROS background check, that should have been sufficient. The argument that a newer background check would somehow catch owners who now should not be able to legally own a BBAW is specious. Once the registration application is approved, there is no further background check to determine the registrant is now not qualified to own a BBAW. All that has been done is to add one further hoop for an otherwise legally qualified prospective owner to have to jump through.

I know, they should know as well but in lib minds you must be a criminal even after passing a background check

I don't think it does anything magical either but hey, it's literally no effort so it's something to do to feel safe while we wait. Remember, theoretically the moment the application is processed to the point of a letter being printed to when we receive the letter could be weeks. At the point of a successful application that has been approved it means nothing that the weapon is disassembled..........

The only time weapons disassembly means anything is when it's NOT a RAW yet. We never know the exact time it does turn into a RAW.

The main thing to get across to people is that it's a bad idea to be moving around with the weapon before we have a letter in hand. I think some still erroneously think disassembly covers them when they are transporting.

Well if you have to move them, make sure the only thing is the detachable mag, no pistol grip. Basically featureless with no upper then lock it in a case. Featureless covers possibility of non reg AW, locked case covers RAW. Better to be safe than sorry.

Well if you have to move them, make sure the only thing is the detachable mag, no pistol grip. Basically featureless with no upper then lock it in a case. Featureless covers possibility of non reg AW, locked case covers RAW. Better to be safe than sorry.

Yeah but that opens up a few cans of worms. First off if the weapon is registered (remember we have no way of knowing when it actually goes into the AFS) then any featureless status is negated.

Here is the scenario: I am tired to waiting for my letter and want to go shoot my AR at the range, RAW is still pending because I haven't gotten my letter. I make it featureless or disassemble it to go to the range. I lock the case.

On my way back I get into a car accident. Weapons are confiscated and LEO looks it up in the AFS. If it doesn't appear then maybe it's all good, but then they have to determine if the pending submission is an issue. Let's say it has been processed, then the weapons are RAW. No real issue there either but LEO would be confused if the firearm was not in a locked container, for instance. Or if I appeared to violate point A to point B travel restrictions, etc. If it was RAW I would be screwed, if it wasn't I might be ok.

Real danger is when I go featureless of disassemble and then don't know if the weapon is in the AFS yet and act like the weapon is not AW. The long and short of the story is to avoid this nightmare and wait for the letter in hand.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by doggie

Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG

Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.

"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Yeah but that opens up a few cans of worms. First off if the weapon is registered (remember we have no way of knowing when it actually goes into the AFS) then any featureless status is negated.

Here is the scenario: I am tired to waiting for my letter and want to go shoot my AR at the range, RAW is still pending because I haven't gotten my letter. I make it featureless or disassemble it to go to the range. I lock the case.

On my way back I get into a car accident. Weapons are confiscated and LEO looks it up in the AFS. If it doesn't appear then maybe it's all good, but then they have to determine if the pending submission is an issue. Let's say it has been processed, then the weapons are RAW. No real issue there either but LEO would be confused if the firearm was not in a locked container, for instance. Or if I appeared to violate point A to point B travel restrictions, etc. If it was RAW I would be screwed, if it wasn't I might be ok.

Real danger is when I go featureless of disassemble and then don't know if the weapon is in the AFS yet and act like the weapon is not AW. The long and short of the story is to avoid this nightmare and wait for the letter in hand.

1. If not currently registered but pending and featureless and locked in a case.... non issue, not AW

2. If registered and were coming back from a range, moving to a new house, going to a gunsmith, etc... The LE encounter, they can pull the registration status. Locked case with lower featureless.... again non issue, RAW transported legally

The key is honestly to find a way to make sure both bases are covered at the same time if you donít have the letter in your hand. Remember, the DOJ pulled the regs for registration. As long as itís featureless and locked in a case you have both sides covered till you get that letter. Once you do, set it back up to how the pictures were sent in.

A car accident should not violate the point a to b regs. Unless your driving was at fault.. you couldnít control the other driver hitting you, rock that came down the hill or animal that jumped in front of you... etc.....

Locked Case + Featureless, pending or finalized, should be enough to satisfy both laws and keep you out of trouble

Disassembly or any conversions of a weapon post-registration implies that a caveat exists regarding the weapons configuration pending approval, which there is not. There is absolutely no indication that there is an expectation that registrants disassemble, modify, or reconfigure their weapons until an approval letter is in-hand. To suggest otherwise implies that you are in possession of an unregistered AW, which is not the case.

We need stop thinking for the Department of Justice. It has proven to be far beyond pointless. More importantly, we need to stop criminalizing ourselves. There is no sense in rendering a firearm inoperable, which essentially constitutes disarming ourselves for an unknown amount of time until an application is processed.

The Department of Justice has no interest in answering questions regarding their processing times, the funds allocated to process applications, etc., which is what would happen if someone was arrested for possession of an AW with a pending application.

Sent registration 6/29. Got email this morning saying incomplete to change serial number, and joint owner needs proof of address on primary application. Added that and got email 15 mins later with the processing us mail message.

Joint owner has received no correspondence and was submitted 6/29. I would guess they'll kick back for serial number change and proof of address for primary applicant.

Disassembly or any conversions of a weapon post-registration implies that a caveat exists regarding the weapons configuration pending approval, which there is not. There is absolutely no indication that there is an expectation that registrants disassemble, modify, or reconfigure their weapons until an approval letter is in-hand. To suggest otherwise implies that you are in possession of an unregistered AW, which is not the case.

We need stop thinking for the Department of Justice. It has proven to be far beyond pointless. More importantly, we need to stop criminalizing ourselves. There is no sense in rendering a firearm inoperable, which essentially constitutes disarming ourselves for an unknown amount of time until an application is processed.

The Department of Justice has no interest in answering questions regarding their processing times, the funds allocated to process applications, etc., which is what would happen if someone was arrested for possession of an AW with a pending application.

All I am saying is if rendered featureless till you receive the registration papers in your hand is a smart bet. Same as securing the featureless weapon in a locked case for transport just in case of the ďeventĒ of it being registered in the system as a RAW.

Until they say by law a featureless weapon is also an AW. Being safe when transporting the weapon is going to be key. Donít believe me ask Jason Davis.

Anyone who has not received the papers for RAW, but still wants use of their weapons should take all nessassary steps to comply with both sides of the law.

On a side note, before anyone reads into all the emphasis placed on locked containers and start shopping for Pelican cases, a soft case in a locked trunk qualifies as a locked container. If you drive a truck or SUV, tons of options available.

On a side note, before anyone reads into all the emphasis placed on locked containers and start shopping for Pelican cases, a soft case in a locked trunk qualifies as a locked container. If you drive a truck or SUV, tons of options available.

Imagine transporting 4 AW's to the range...

How about a soft case with the zippers padlocked in the rear of a SUV? Does that qualify as a locked container?

Key is, as long as it's locked. My Mazdaspeed 3 is a hatch. Has a removable deck lid when the hatch is open but the seats fold from inside and one section of the deck lid pops up. So not a locked container itself, so the individual items need to be locked in a case. Soft or hard case.

Key is, as long as it's locked. My Mazdaspeed 3 is a hatch. Has a removable deck lid when the hatch is open but the seats fold from inside and one section of the deck lid pops up. So not a locked container itself, so the individual items need to be locked in a case. Soft or hard case.

With the padlock in place, the zipper handles can not be moved independently to open the case (although some claim to be able to defeat the zipper with a ball point pen, but that circumstance doesn't seem to be addressed in the PC). While not a Pelican, it does seem to meet the requirements of the PC for locked case.

Out of an abundance of caution, when the 2000 RAW is going to the range, the lower and upper receivers are separated and in a locked Pelican. When my Browning 725 Citori's are going to the range, they are in the soft case I linked to above with the zipper handles locked with a padlock.

Is the soft case purpose-built with zippers that were purpose-built for a lock? I have seen soft cases that were secure, rigid, sturdy, and semi-hard. I have seen others that were extremely flimsy.

No different than a handgun, which needs to be transported in a locked container, the legislative intent is to prevent and/or delay access to the firearm. The law was drafted to enhance officer safety during contact with vehicle occupant(s). That said, when laws are somewhat ambiguous, more often than not, courts will generally defer to legislative intent. I.E., what was the law created to specifically address or prevent, which again, is delaying access to the firearm.

Historically, the term "container" has never been defined in lay, legal terms, or case law, nor has the sturdiness or material that the container is made or manufactured from.

Although debated ad-nauseam, soft cases for handguns have been considered legal for years and years, but the moment someone drops a registered AR pistol into a flimsy tennis racket case under the guise of being covert, there will be case law, LOL.

Is the soft case purpose-built with zippers that were purpose-built for a lock? I have seen soft cases that were secure, rigid, sturdy, and semi-hard. I have seen others that were extremely flimsy.

No different than a handgun, which needs to be transported in a locked container, the legislative intent is to prevent and/or delay access to the firearm. The law was drafted to enhance officer safety during contact with vehicle occupant(s). That said, when laws are somewhat ambiguous, more often than not, courts will generally defer to legislative intent. I.E., what was the law created to specifically address or prevent, which again, is delaying access to the firearm.

Historically, the term "container" has never been defined in lay, legal terms, or case law, nor has the sturdiness or material that the container is made or manufactured from.

Although debated ad-nauseam, soft cases for handguns have been considered legal for years and years, but the moment someone drops a registered AR pistol into a flimsy tennis racket case under the guise of being covert, there will be case law, LOL.

Don't know if the zippers were 'purpose-built' for a lock, but they take a lock nicely. If you zoom into the picture of the case, on the bottom left side, the zippers are shown with a bit of leather threaded through each zipper handle to give a bit more leverage on the zipper. The hole for the leather is where the lock gets attached.